Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:45, 15 February 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christ myth theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christ myth theory was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 6, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept February 19, 2010 Good article nominee Listed February 21, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 3, 2010 Peer review Reviewed April 12, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 10, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted June 20, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

Archives

Index Archive 1: To March 26, 2006, Archive 2: To April 30, 2006. Archive 3: Material removed by SOPHIA & Wesley (April 29, 2006), and comments. Archive 4: To May 31, 2006. Archive 5: Material removed by AJA, May 1, 2006, and comments. Archive 6: Lots of material Archive 7: Jan-May 2007, conversations leading up to the split Archive 8: To May 2007, Article split and name discussions Archive 9: May 2007-October 2007, naming, NPOV, etc. Archive 10: through Dec 2007: more NPOV, fringy-ness (or not), Bauer, etc. Archive 11: through Jan 31 2008: more NPOV, sources, etc. Archive 12: through Mar 18 2008: complaining about Grant quote, etc. Archive 13: through Apr 28 2008: more of the same Archive 14: through May 24 2008: RfC, neutrality, Grant, etc. Archive 15: through Aug 2008: scholarly response, euhemerization, docetism, circular discussion. Archive 16: more summer 2008: scholarly response, fringiness, hand-wringing. Archive 17: August 2008/September 2008 Archive 18: Sept-Dec 2008 Archive 19: Dec 2008-Jan 2009: Remsburg/-erg, etc. Archive 20: Jan 30 2009-Feb 2009 Archive 21: Mar 11 2009: Name and overall theme Archive 22: Mar 31,2009: Overhaul of Intro Archive 23: April-May 2009: issues with chart, misc. Archive 24: May-Nov. 2009

Archives by topic: Definition, FAQ discussions, POV tag, Pseudohistory, Sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT

Adding a fringe tag

I'm hoping we can get to a new consensus on the fringe tag (Category:Fringe theory), now that it is clear it doesn't carry an automatic pejorative connotation. Can people list their names below and whether they support or oppose the tag? Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

From the tag page:

A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. It can include work done to the appropriate level of scholarship in a field of study but only supported by a minority of practitioners, to more dubious work. Examples of the latter include pseudoscience (ideas that purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support), conspiracy theories, unproven claims about alternative medicine, pseudohistory and so forth.

Just seeking possible correction, as I think Martijn is referring to Template:Fringe theories and not the Category:Fringe theories. Am I correct in that assumption? John Carter (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was the latter, but I'm not sure. I get the impression the former is for pages that are not dedicated to a fringe theory, but give it an WP:UNDUE amount of attention. I imagine it potentially being used on the Historical Jesus page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: I believe that the template is a temporary measure for specifying something is wrong with the page, namely that it presents a fringe theory as if it were a mainstream theory, while the category is for articles on (notable) fringe theories that properly identify them as such and can therefore remain indefinitely. I'm proposing the latter here. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean to add this tag: Category:Fringe theories (where there are 19 other pages), not this tag: Category:Fringe theory (which is the general category page). Note that Hebrew Gospel hypothesis links to the "theories" page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be right. I'm not too familiar with the details of categories vs templates and how they are supposed to be used. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The list of authors who have demonstrated that the Jesus stories are likely fictional is huge. This is not fringe theory. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think only serious academics count for the purposes of the tag / category. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The number of academics is proportionally small, and they are ridiculed by the vast majority of scholars - almost by definition making it a fringe theory. Your argument is very weak. --Sennsationalist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not correct. In fact, the vast majority of 'serious' New Testament scholars today have concluded that the Jesus biographies (as set forth in the canonical gospels) contain a large amount of fiction (at the very least). Only ultra-conservative scholars still try to argue for the historicity of, say, the so-called 'zombie resurrection' (Mt 27:52–53), the "darkness over the whole land" preceding Jesus' death (Mt 15:33), or the massacre of the innocent babies by Herod following Jesus' alleged birth (Mt 2:16–18). And these are only three examples of many that can be presented to any neutral scientific observer.Renejs (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. It sure is getting difficult to AGF when you insist on peddling obvious falsehoods. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Peddling obvious falsehoods"? That's a pretty strong language, Bill the Cat 7. . . Actually, no serious (that is, scientific) New Testament scholar today believes in the historicity of the zombie resurrection, the slaughter of the innocent babies by Herod, and the "darkness over the whole land" preceding Jesus' death. You're saying that to deny them is an "obvious falsehood"--but your view is ridiculous from a scientific standpoint. Yes, I grant that there still exists a diminishing coterie of faith-based conservative Christian 'scholars' primarily teaching at small Christian colleges throughout the Bible Belt, for whom faith is more important than reason. They will support you. They believe in the zombie resurrection. These are your six-day creationists and anti-evolutionists. I think it's time to call their bluff though--time to say: "You're spreading delusions, absurdities that have no scientific basis."Renejs (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right, most NT scholars do not accept those details. That's called the historical Jesus position. Bacchiad (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about a historical jesus. It's a about a fringe theory held by a tiny minority of scholars that virtually all other scholars ridicule. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that Bill's frustration is coming from the fact that you, Renejs, seem to be willfully conflating the argument for a Historical Jesus and the argument for a literal interpretation of the New Testament. This is a problem that User:Jeffro77 has consistently brought up. This article is about the belief that there is no historical Jesus (a fringe position held by a small minority of fringe scholars), not the belief that Jesus did not do what the New Testament says he did (a mainstream view held by most people, including liberal Christians). If you are purposely conflating these two positions in order to confuse the issue, that is extremely counter-productive. If you are legitimately confused, please ask for clarification, and take steps to educate yourself as to the distinction. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No willful conflation of evidence from the HJ article here, Senn. Actually, that never entered my mind. And no confusion here. . . But maybe you're engaging in one of the favorite pastimes of historicity defenders on this talk page: falsely accusing. FYI, in these discussions I try to focus on the verifiable facts available--not on behavior, protocol, AGF, etc--ALL of which have, incidentally, been violated by several users who have recently seen fit to attack me. (The latest example being Bill the Cat 7 who claims to assume good faith--in the same sentence that he imperiously accuses me of "peddling obvious falsehoods." Well, that's not very AGF of him. . !)

I'm trying to do my best to hold people factually accountable for what they write. that's it in a nutshell. And I think the admins will realize this in time. If a user writes something--and especially if he puts it in the article--then he has to be able to defend it factually. No more throwing weight around with vague, highly-loaded language like "peddling obvious falsehoods," or the latest from you, Senn: characterizing the CMT as "a fringe position held by a small minority of fringe scholars." Huh? Aren't you just possibly jumping to a few minor conclusions here. . ? First of all, "fringe" has hardly been decided by consensus, and in fact it seems to be going down (at last count the vote was 6 'support' and 7 'oppose'.) But you use it twice in your characterization: you call the CMT position "fringe" and you also call the scholars who hold it "fringe." So, you're already poisoning the well by jumping to the very conclusion which needs to be argued. And you apparently do this blithely, as a matter of course. Also, your use of the words "small minority" is an evaluation which could bear some scrutiny. Where should we put the growing number of agnostics, for example--scholars who are open/sympathetic to the CMT (like Hector Avalos and the European minimalists)? All I'm saying is: let's be more precise with our language, reduce the rhetoric a little, and do our homework before we mouth off.Renejs (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Rene, this kind of reply illustrates why other editors are finding you hard to get along with. You don't actually address the posts above. Most scholars who hold to Jesus's historicity do not hold to a literal interpretation of scripture. The virgin birth, the resurrection, most or all of the speeches - out the window. It's possible to oppose literalism while not being a mythicist. At least two editors pointed this out to you. But you don't respond to that; instead, you go off on two long paragraphs about other matters, partly ad-hominem. Make it easier for people to work with you, dude. Bacchiad (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems here User:Renejs.

1. You claim that you are trying to focus on verifiable facts (as one should), but you have not demonstrated strong arguments that support your position. When I rebutted your arguments for CMT not being fringe in your "Oppose", you stated "I just gave my opinion," suggesting that you don't have a strong counter-rebuttal to offer. As far as I can see, the arguments that CMT is not a fringe theory carry very little weight.
2. You say that protocol is not important to you. However, there is a strong consensus among the Misplaced Pages community that says we need to follow protocol. We can't just ignore it when it suits us. And in this case, I think that protocol is fairly clearly defined: a theory that is embraced by only a very small portion of academics, while the rest view the theory as ridiculous, should be clearly labeled as a fringe theory. At this point, from what I've seen, the arguments that CMT is fringe strongly outweigh the arguments that it is not fringe. Therefore, the onus is now on you and other CMT sympathizers to demonstrate why we should not add the fringe tag.

   

3. Misplaced Pages is not about the number of votes, as you seem to think, but rather the relative strengths of the arguments given. No, we do not have a consensus, and I strongly suspect that we may have to go to an RfC. But I expect that on an RfC a consensus would be reached to apply the fringe tag to CMT based on the strengths of the arguments given.
4. Lastly, many editors have found you difficult to deal with Renejs. You are correct in stating that WP:AGF is important, but I don't blame Bill for commenting that it is becoming difficult for him to assume good faith. Please try to give arguments higher on the pyramid in this diagram, rather than ad hominem. Thanks. --Sennsationalist (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The evidence for a historical Jesus is so thin that perhaps a fringe tag should be placed on the Jesus of Nazareth page. GMarxx (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:OR to me. According to most scholars, there is as good evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus as there is for many other ancient historical figures. Also the fringe tag wouldn't really apply to that page. You seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding of the purpose of that tag. --Sennsationalist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Have you got any relevant citations that would describe these theories as fringe theories? Bladesmulti (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sure. Here you go. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the criterion is that there is hardly any scholarly support for the theory, not that we have reliable sources who say it's a fringe theory (it's different from WP:RS/AC apparently). But as it happens, not only do we have several reliable sources who say there is next to no academic support for it, we only have a handful of scholars who do support it and who themselves agree they are in a tiny minority. In addition, Bill the Cat has supplied a long list of citations that actually say it's a fringe theory. Jeppiz also dug up a quote from Dick Harrison who calls the CMT a "conspiracy theory". Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Need something else, pretty much like what John Carter has suggested above. I also think that this kind of category would make very known authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc. a fringe advocate. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree the category would make these into advocates of a fringe theory. I've added a link to the tag and quoted some of its text. Do you disagree that going by the text of the tag page, the category should apply? I find it hard to escape that conclusion, the text is pretty clear. If you agree, we should perhaps discuss whether the category itself is legitimate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

BM, what else do you need? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Minority theory" would work. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a category, theories that are up the scholarly standard in a field but only supported by a tiny minority of scholars fall under the category, per the definition I quoted above. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Without a clearer distinction between Jesus as a myth and Christ as a myth, this still would not be suitable. Only a third of the world's population are even nominally Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The article already makes this distinction clear, the lede defines the CMT as "the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.". We had a lengthy discussion about this last year, during which we considered many variants. One of the main points of discussion was whether we should make this distinction or not, and we ended up with this definition precisely because we thought the distinction was in fact important. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's also notable that a lot of CMT supporters are fringe themselves, purporting absurd theories over the internet (theories that go beyond rationality). Just because there are some fringe advocates doesn't necessarily make them the face of the theory. They may be the respected and scholarly face of the theory, but it's worth considering the general population that espouses the theory when considering whether it's fringe. --Sennsationalist (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support And as for Dawkins, Hitchens and several others mentioned in the article, let's remember that at one point one user inserted a lot people who are not CMT proponents and cherrypicked statements to make them appear to support it. I've read both Dawkins and Hitchens (with great pleasure) and never seen them say anything that would have made them CMT proponents.Jeppiz (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose In its current form, this article conflates the ideas that Jesus didn't exist at all ('Jesus is a myth'—a minority view) with the rejection of divine/supernatural claims ('Christ is a myth'—a two-thirds majority worldview, though it probably doesn't seem that way in the US). Without greater clarification on the distinction, it should not be presented as 'fringe'. See also Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias. (It is telling that this article is full of weasel words about the 'claims' of 'myth proponents' including some reasonable views in the Key arguments section, in stark contrast to how Christians fought 'tooth and nail' to not have the word 'myth' in the titles of Genesis creation narrative and Genesis flood narrative.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

See, above, the article clearly spells out the difference. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, this article should clearly state that it is not about material that properly belongs at historical Jesus, particularly including the entirely reasonable view that supernatural stories about Jesus were invented later. Only then should this article be marked as fringe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was quite clear (in the article's lede, and in other sources) that CMT is the theory that there was no historical Jesus. I think it's obvious that CMT proponents also believe that Jesus didn't perform miracles, and isn't the Messiah (both of which presuppose the existence of a historical Jesus). If some sort of distinction needs to be made in this article, I don't see it, but feel free to propose an alternate lede. --Sennsationalist (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your statement that "CMT proponents also believe that Jesus didn't perform miracles" is redundant, and somewhat misleading. Even the article title does not make the distinction clear, in fact it makes it worse. At the very least, the distinction would only be properly made clear by not emphasising the name Christ myth theory. The article should be moved to Jesus myth theory, and the term Christ myth theory should be indicated only as a secondary name it's also (inaccurately) known by. The view that Christ is a myth is not remotely 'fringe'. More accurately, JMT proponents "also believe that Jesus didn't perform miracles" because the don't believe in a "historical Jesus", but CMT proponents include people who recognise the possibility of a historical Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Fringe is like obscenity, we know it when we see it. The idea that Christ is a myth is not fringe any more than Galileo was fringe. Not only Dawkins and Hitchens but Albert Schweitzer, Will Durant and all the others. Misplaced Pages loses credibility with stuff like this. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Per the definition in the lede, the CMT is not merely saying that the supernatural events described in the gospels are mythical, it means that there was no historical Jesus in any meaningful sense. Also, fringe in the sense of the category is not a pejorative qualification, the bar is that only a tiny minority of scholars (not authors) support the thoery, something which isn't denied by anybody as far as I'm aware. Galileo's theories were once fringe in the sense Misplaced Pages uses that term. Later they became mainstream. Plate tectonics is the standard Misplaced Pages example by the way: once a fringe theory, now a part of mainstream science. There is a subcategory for pseudoscience, and I would oppose adding that subtag, because there are a handful of serious scholars who support the CMT. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Albert Schweitzer did not belive CMT. Albert Schweitzer was a notorious historical Jesus theorist. I think you're wrong about Will Durant too; but even if not, he also believed European languages were descended from Sanskrit. Bacchiad (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support The overwhelming scholarly consensus supports the historocity of Christ. The principle supporters of the CMT here seem to have tremendous WP:COI issues. Zarcusian (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there is broad support for the historicity of Jesus. Christ is a separate theological claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You're well aware that for the purposes of this vote the terms are being used interchangeably. That's an entirely different issue. This section is to vote. Post your debate under the new section. Zarcusian (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to tell me what I'm 'aware of'. I don't care that some imagine that the terms are interchangeable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And there's the problem in a nutshell, you "don't care". The opposition here seems to have some very serious NPOV conflicts. Hardly a surprise this article has an open ANI dispute. Zarcusian (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to misrepresent what I said. I am not involved in any current ANI dispute, and I have clearly indicated why the terms are not interchangeable, and why the article name has a bearing on applying a fringe tag.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support I think that it's very important to return the "Fringe" label to this article. It is clear that this is a view held by a tiny minority of scholars. Proponents generally apply hypocritical and inconsistent requirements to New Testament scholarship and textual criticism that are not required for other historical figures. People rely on Misplaced Pages for information. The purpose of the "Fringe" disclaimer is to alert readers that they need to read the article with a certain level of skepticism and critical thinking. --Sennsationalist (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

By its very name, Christ myth theory is inherently about people who don't believe Jesus to be Christ. Whilst that includes people who don't believe Jesus existed at all, it also inherently includes the broader view that there was nothing supernatural about Jesus. The premise for the article is therefore misleading. This can only be rectified by renaming the article and shifting focus away from Christ myth theory. Then it may be appropriate to apply a fringe template, after the article text is also reviewed for misleading emphasis on Christ rather than Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a certain logic to that argument, but we don't get to pick the name ourselves. People like Price use the term Christ Myth Theory for the idea that there was no historical Jesus, not for the mainstream idea that the supernatural events depicted in the gospels didn't happen. Read the lede, there can be absolutely no confusion about what the article means by the term. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is insistence to use a misleading title, then it is not appropriate to apply a fringe template. Further, this statement in the lead: "Some of these authors concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional" is actually entirely consistent with the mainstream secular view, and does not convey to readers that only 'hardcore mythicists' are being discussed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see what you're so hung up on here. The name of the theory that there was no historical Jesus is "Christ Myth Theory". That is the name that has been used by proponents and detractors in published works. I see why you could draw the conclusion that based on those three words alone, it might mean something else. But it doesn't - elsewhere "Christ Myth Theory" has been defined, and we reflect that definition in the lede. Perhaps clarification is needed, but as Mmeijeri has said, we should name the article as it is named in academic work. As an FYI, the article has at two or more points in the past been named Jesus Myth Theory.

As an aside, I don't see a problem with bringing clarity to the article by removing the bit about some authors conceding that Jesus may have been a real person, as that seems to be a sub-theory that is at odds with the theory as a whole. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose in its current form. We had a long formal process on this talk page a while back, and it was agreed that the CMT actually has two different definitions - Def A: that Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all; and Def B: that Jesus may well have existed but he was not God and he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. Def A is opposed by a majority of the scholars who bother to get involved, and Def A may thus meet the definition of fringe, but Def B is virtually mainstream. I think the lead should state more clearly that Def A is not broadly supported but that Def B has a lot of support - I don't think the current wording is clear enough. To simply label the entire CMT as fringe, without clarifying that distinction, would thus be wrong. The lead used to be more clear about this than it is now. Wdford (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The B interpretation does not have a lot of support at all. Mainstream historical Jesus research doesn't say Jesus had virtually nothing to do with Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream scholars dispute the birth narratives, the virgin birth, the massacre of the infants, the flight to Egypt, the many miracles, the resurrection, the ascension etc. It even questions some of the content of the sermons as having been added in later. It seems that Jesus was a Jew who became a political threat and was executed for it, not a God-man who started a new religion. Some scholars obviously do still claim that the gospels are all historically true, but that does not seem to be a majority view anymore. Wdford (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In other words, they dispute the miracles and some of the contents of the sermons, but they accept there was a historical Jesus at the core of the gospel stories. Our interpretation B does not encompass that view. There aren't just two views: all historically true vs our interpretation B. There is a third view, which is clearly distinct from both views and that view is the mainstream view among historical Jesus scholars. You are conflating the mainstream view with interpretation B, and not for the first time. We had a lengthy discussion about it last year, in which you found yourself in a minority of one. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream scholars dispute a lot more than just the miracles and the sermons, they also dispute the birth narratives, the virgin birth, the massacre of the infants, the flight to Egypt, the resurrection and the ascension. When you look closely, all that remains is "There was a real Jesus-person, who was baptized and crucified". That is not much different to Wells and Doherty. I'm not saying that the CMT is accepted by the mainstream, merely that there are two definitions of the CMT, one is fringe and the other not. Wdford (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

All of these except for the massacre of the infants count as miracles. Also, mainstream biblical scholars don't just believe in the historicity of the baptism and crucifixion, that's just the only part they agree about. There is no variant of the CMT that isn't fringe in the non-pejorative sense. There are several variants that aren't fringe in the grassy knoll sense though. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to the average reader that "all of these ... count as miracles". A reader might think that any of those events has some 'historical core', whereas some or all may not have happened at all, and this is in line with mainstream views. This is especially problematic if the article title is labelled as 'fringe' for stating that Christ (not Jesus) is a myth. For this reason, discussion about the article name cannot be separated from an assessment as fringe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless of course, CMT is unambiguously defined in the lede to mean that the theory that there was no historical Jesus at all. I really don't see what the trouble is. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's unsurprising that the term Christ myth theory is more common, because there are more people who view Christ as a myth. All proponents of the Jesus myth theory inherently ascribe to the more reasonable Christ myth theory (that is, based on what the words actually mean, not merely what is 'popular'), but most people who view Christ as a myth are not part of the fringe Jesus mythicists. It is convenient to their cause to use the more rational title because it does exactly what is happening here—it blurs definitions, falsely implying a kind of legitimacy by associating their view with the more reasonable view that Jesus wasn't magical. On the flipside, it is also convenient for Christians to refer to the idea that Jesus is a myth as the Christ myth theory because it serves to 'discredit' the mainstream view (guilt by association). As such, it is in the interest of both biased groups to associate the mainstream view with the fringe view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that supports your claims regarding these definitions? --Sennsationalist (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Examination of questions to do with Jesus' existence is not part of mainstream historical research in the first place. It's the concern of a clique of Bible scholars who openly reject the standard evaluation criteria used by historians. That only a small number of those are prepared to say "hang on a second" does not make for a "fringe theory". All theories about whether Jesus existed have a weak empirical basis, but none deserves categorisation as "fringe", which is of course a pejorative, and highly misleading, label. Formerip (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we do have serious historians who have opined on the matter. But whether a theory is fringe in the sense of the tag and its category doesn't depend on the number of scholarly opponents, but on the number of scholarly supporters, and it is clear there are only a handful or so of those. Also, it turns out the tag and its category are not in fact pejorative, as you can see from the category page I linked to above, and which I also blockquoted for easier reference. There is a subcategory for things like pseudohistory, which is clearly pejorative, and whose use I agree would be inappropriate, given that there are serious scholars who support the CMT or at least take it as a serious possibility. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not very sure we do have any mainstream historians (i.e. working outside the field of Bible studies) who have opined on this debate, except to criticise the field. I am certain that we don't have any in recent times who have published research or made a serious contribution to the key questions. It would be outside their job description, really.

What we have in this case is a peripheral group of academics, some of who eschew mainstream methodology and some of who prefer to stick with it. In that context, it is not appropriate to label the latter group as a "fringe". They are not, in the wording of the category page (which I don't incidentally, privilege over ordinary English usage) departing from the prevailing or mainstream view (because, in the wider academic community, there isn't one). Formerip (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the academic standing of biblical scholarship and historical Jesus research in particular can be questioned, but at best that would mean that HJ Jesus scholarship is fringe too (again, in the non-pejorative sense), not that the CMT isn't. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT, we don't have an article specifically on historical Jesus scholarship, so we can't really balance things by that method. What we have, somewhat scandalously, IMO, is a lot of content across multiple articles (including this one) that treats it as if it were uncontroversial mainstream work, so I think you've put your finger on a significant neutrality issue. Formerip (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of my main concerns too. I've tried to mitigate this by adding citations to criticism sections, but I agree the problem remains. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

FormerIP, it is not Misplaced Pages's place to determine whether or not the majority of biblical scholars are biased. That sounds a lot like WP:TRUTH to me. The overwhelming majority of anyone in New Testament scholarship (including non-Christians) has affirmed the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, and your assertion that they "have a weak empirical basis" on which to make these claims is irrelevant. I would also challenge you to provide evidence that mainstream biblical scholars "openly reject the standard evaluation criteria used by historians".

I am not sure why you expect "mainstream historians" who do not work in biblical studies to have made claims on the historicity of Jesus. History can be very specialized, and those most qualified to argue for or against the historicity of Jesus will be biblical historians. I'm not sure why that's a problem

Lastly, among scholars and academics, the historical existence of Jesus is or at least has been until very recently uncontroversial. That CMT may be slowly gaining traction and popularity among non-academics shouldn't have any bearing on how Misplaced Pages treats the matter. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We're moving away from the topic of this subsection, so if this goes on for a lot longer, we may want to start a new subsection. That said, there has been criticism about a lack of impartiality and a lack of methodological soundness in biblical scholarship in general and HJ research in particular. This criticism has come from respected scholars both inside and outside the field. I think it's a valid concern, but I don't see how that would affect the fringeness or otherwise of the CMT. Nevertheless it is something that should be reflected in the way we treat HJ scholars, although I'm not sure exactly how. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no hard and fast 'rule' here, and the "fringe" label could be argued either way, IMO. The problems with applying the label are, for me: (1) the CMT is under-represented by a 'nose count' of academics--after all, there is still enormous pressure NOT to endorse this view, pressure which includes loss of job and reputation (cf. Thomas L. Brodie recently losing his position). Thus, simply saying "very few serious scholars endorse this position" is not an accurate gauge of support. (2) The whole field is in a state of flux, and the CMT is on an upward trajectory (look at Prof. M. Casey's statement that "One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist"). Thus, what is arguably "fringe" today may not be so in the very near future. (3) There actually is substantial support for the CMT among serious scholars. The section #9 above (Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT) shows this (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT). Given these reservations, I would not apply the 'fringe' tag which, in addition to the substantive reservations noted above, also carries undeniable pejorative overtones (even if they are not intended nor necessary).Renejs (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) is a flawed argument. You're basically saying that because CMT is fringe, that is stopping it from not being fringe. If CMT is a fringe viewpoint then of course there will be prejudice against proponents of it, just as there would be for proponents of 7-day creationism, or an earth centered universe. (2) Misplaced Pages does not predict the future, we simply report on verifiable academic sources at the current time. See WP:SPECULATION. (3) 20-25 scholars through the last century is not a very large group in the entire body of biblical academic scholarship during that time. (4) We have established that the fringe tag should not be viewed as pejorative, and the possibility that some might interpret it that way should not stop us from following Misplaced Pages guidelines. Our decision should be based on the definitions of a fringe theory. Please follow Misplaced Pages guidelines instead of making up your own standards for what qualifies. --Sennsationalist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I just gave my opinion.Renejs (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. In the non-pejorative sense, it certainly is fringe. Bacchiad (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support It is nearly impossible to do a doctorate at any mainstream university on this subject, because no modern respected scholar will defend it. And interestingly enough, even the proponents of the theory, such as Robert Price, admit that it is a fringe theory.--TMD Talk Page. 22:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Virtually every respectable scholar of antiquity agrees that the idea of Jesus never existing is an outlier at best. --Ajmcinty (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I wrote some time ago here that I do not fully understand the meaning of "fringe" in English. If it just means "supported by only few scholars", then yes. But if it has anything to do with "7-day creationism, or an earth centered universe", like some people mention, then it is obviously not applicable. To see this, it is sufficient just to compare books by, say, Price, Carrier, Doherty (CMT proponents) on one hand and of the book by Ehrman, who serves here as "academic voice", on the other hand. Ok, this is just an explanation of my vote, I do not intent to argue about anything. (I also mentioned previously that the quote of Ehrman in the article is far from any sort of scholarly argument or so. But maybe it is ok that it is there because it characterizes very well the "arguments" of the people who are taken as academic experts by their positions. It is their shame, wikipedia just reports this.)Jelamkorj (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I too would object to a pejorative tag that suggests it is like alien abductions. In fact, I previously objected to the tag because I thought that was what it meant. But if you read the page it links to, you'll see that it only means that very few serious scholars support it, which is true. To be sure, there are serious scholars who support it, but only one or two handfuls. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean a whole 6 "well-qualified experts"??? And do the two sitting professors teach at accredited universities? At any rate, that merely means that about 99.99% reject it. The situation has, therefore, certainly not changed. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The above is just more of the "fringe" stuff you've been harping on for the last three months, Bill, which is why I've mirrored the comment here. It's time to pony up and put your money where your mouth is. . . You say 6 experts is nothing. OK, find us an article already tagged with "fringe" which has 6 "well-qualified experts" ascribing to it. If you can do that, well--yes, I for one will become much more receptive to your thesis that CMT deserves to be "fringe."Renejs (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

First, note the I put well-qualified experts in quotes. Second, what you think or what I think about the fringe/non-fringe status of the CMT is irrelevant. It's what the scholars have to say that matters and they reject it as fringe. Try to keep that in mind. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right only when it comes to conservative scholars. They have no trouble throwing the CMT into the can and burying it 10 feet under. More support, however, is found for the CMT in public institutions--those not affiliated by charter with any religion. Retired academics (free to speak out) and non-affiliated scholars (also free to speak out) are naturally also proportionally well represented among CMT proponents. (Even Fr. Thomas Brodie, who went public with the CMT at the end of his career.) I'm not sure if Avalos, Davies, Lemche, or Thompson would call the CMT "fringe." I think it depends considerably on who you call a "scholar" and who you sample.Renejs (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that that little composition right out of the conspiracy theorist's tool box is as good an argument as any for why both 'fringe' or 'conspiracy' theory is applicable. It really has it all, the accusation against 'conservative scholars', the insinuation that most experts aren't 'free to speak out'. This is the same arguments conspiracy theorists bring up regardless of whether it's Obama's birth, Obama's religion, 9/11, the Holocaust, UFOs, or Jesus' existence. There is always this big conspiracy that stop everybody from the few brave to "freely speak out".Jeppiz (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't it Ehrman who stated that openly supporting the CMT would prevent a scholar from getting employment in a religious studies department? Wasn't Brodie actually sacked and banned by a religious college for teaching stuff The Establishment didn't approve of? Wdford (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hrm, Brodie was a priest, hardly applicable. The Dominican Order to which he belonged apparently decided that you could not speak in its name and say that Jesus didn't exist. That's very different from an academic not being able to speak his or her mind. As you mention Bart Ehrman, he is the number one hate target of the religious conservative and openly challenges Christianity in all his books and speeches, yet he retains his position. Same thing for a number of academics who have openly questioned the very foundations of Christianity, all of them continue to work. So trying to insinuate some Great Conspiracy where academics must toll the line is only possible if one is willing to completely ignore all facts to the contrary (which of course conspiracy theorists often are).Jeppiz (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh? So when Ehrman says that most scholars who study the historical period of Jesus do not support the Christ Myth Theory then Ehrman is a credible and authoritative source, but when Ehrman says that supporting the CMT would in fact be a career-limiting move for a scholar then Ehrman is suddenly a hypocritical conspiracy-theorist. Isn't that a bit like cherry-picking? Wdford (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Denying the Holocaust would also be a rather career-limiting move for a history scholar Ceationism would also be a rather career-limiting movefor a science scholar. That does not mean there's a great conspiracy to silent such views. My point, which I must assume you deliberately ignore, is that it is fully possible (even common) for academics to publish books and articles that declare Christianity invalid and yet have a career in academia. The alleged "Christian conspiracy" is pure nonsense.Jeppiz (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that pure nonsense is to relate the works by Price, Brodie, Carrier, Doherty ... to some sort of "Holocaust deniers" or so. But it is very difficult to argue with somebody who does not concentrate on scholarly arguments but prefers bold offensive statements. (As I also mentioned previously, the Criticism section should summarize -scholarly arguments- why CMT is so terribly wrong, if such arguments really exist, and not some derogatory quotes of scholars that contain no such arguments.)Jelamkorj (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, the comparison with Holocaust deniers was out of place and I've withdrawn it. They are motivated by political factors, often pure racism, and I did not mean to make any such accusation against CMT proponents. Very unsuitable, and I apologise. Still, I stand by the statement that I find it ridiculous to claim there is some sort of establishment conspiracy against CMT, when it's plain for everyone to see that scholars are actively "attacking" the very foundations of Christianity and still having distinguished careers as Bible scholars.Jeppiz (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Though I appreciate your apology about associating the CMT reflexively with Holocaust denial, such reflexive caricaturing is very prevalent. If you look at the citations specifying the CMT is fringe , you'll find no less than 8 associations of CMT with Holocaust denial. They include Bart Ehrman, Dennis Ingolfsland, Nicholas Perrin, Michael Licona (twice), John Piper, Michael McClymond, and Mark Allan Powell. That's totally inexcusable IMO and demonstrates how the CMT is reflexively demonized and deprived of an objective evaluation.Renejs (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Making the Grant quote more accurate

We clearly do not have a consensus about what if anything to do with the Grant quote, and if the nature of the discussions we've had over the years is any guide, it is unlikely we'll reach a consensus in the near future. Nevertheless there are a few simple edits that I hope will be uncontroversial:

First of all, our abbreviated quote is slightly misleading, as it omits the crucial words 'or at any rate very few'. In addition we could make clear (by using apostrophes in appropriate places) where Grant is citing other scholars and where he is speaking in his own voice. Finally, we could add the words "in 1977" to avoid any impression this was a recent criticism. Similar time indications could be added to other quotes if necessary, but let's start here.

I'm hoping that we'll at least be making some small amount of progress, as well as demonstrating how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. What do you say? Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Clap clap. After two weeks of tussling we're finally abandoning the "short form" of the Grant statement! The glacier has moved. . . "Slightly misleading" is, umm, a slight understatement--try: "outright false."

I'm not in favor of attempting a convoluted resurrection of the Grant paragraph--even with the many 'bandaid' provisions you note ( adding a date--actually multiple dates; adding citation markers to secondary sources; adding "critical" words). Practically every part of the Grant paragraph is false and must be jettisoned. We haven't even started discussing the various parts of that factually unsupportable paragraph. For example, I have problems with the first assertion: "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory." This is very questionable. At the very least, a consensus would have to be determined here. Secondly, the word "annihilated" is pure POV and untrue. A more moderate word like "answered" needs to go there. Thirdly, the evidence against the CMT is not "very abundant." This is grossly unsustainable, as a reading of the above section, "Scholarly Citations Supporting the CMT" shows. Finally, the additional words "or at least very few" qualifies a false main clause ("no serious scholar"). The problem is in the main clause and is not overcome by those additional words which begin with "OR". There is no "or" about it in 2015: the main clause is itself false.

ISTM that this colossal refusal to part with the very imperfect Grant paragraph owes to the fact that many people simply like it. It confirms the ultra-conservative position on the CMT very nicely. But liking something is not a reason to keep it. Each statement must be verified on its own right, and it must be NPOV, whether we like it or not. We've already discussed a "compromise" paragraph. For some reason, that isn't getting the attention I think it deserves. Maybe it's time will come. . .

The only way I see keeping the Grant paragraph (as stated in the book, not our false, pruned "status quo" version) is if we wanted to contrast the situation in 1977 with that in 2015. This would be a whole different kettle of fish, one which nobody's talked about. I doubt there would be much interest in this possibility, which would probably require a new section dealing with "The CMT through history" or some such.Renejs (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting my position. I've never argued in favour of the shortened version, and I had already argued for extending the quote and adding the 'in 1977'. I have no objection to changes in general, but together with several others I objected to the specific changes you made. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What "specific changes" did I make that you are objecting to?Renejs (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the "no serious scholar" part and adding the "However, it should be noted" rebuttal. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You're a loose cannon, Meijering. You've got the wrong person! I didn't add the 30 words beginning "Although, it should be noted. . ." That was added on January 5 by user 122.106.82.185 (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=641062864&oldid=640980043). How can anybody make headway with you if you're not able to be objective?

You also have a RIGID "refusal to hear." I already informed you of this, that I've added NO words at all to the CMT article. That was only two days ago on the ANI page (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=643158073). I wrote: "I've NEVER put any content into the CMT article. Check my contributions. . . " What part of that do you not understand? Stop falsely accusing me of things I didn't do!

You most certainly did add a rebuttal here: . I believe the most recent rebuttal was an edited version of it, but even if it's not I'm opposed to adding selective rebuttals in general as it violates WP:NPOV and / or WP:SYNTH. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

To recap for everybody: My SOLE activity in this whole brouhaha has been to REMOVE 11 words from the Grant statement at the end of the Criticism section. You know the words well: "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." That was on Jan. 6. Now those words are back in because yesterday Meijering put them back. So, after ALL the discussion on the Talk page, multiples sections, an RfC, etc. etc., we're BACK where we started. . . That's vintage Meijering for you! And that's unacceptable to me.

Too bad, but WP:CONSENSUS is Misplaced Pages policy. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've given discussion a really good go, folks. Obviously it hasn't been enough. It's clear to me that a lot of you follow Meijering's lead, and that he's become a self-appointed 'policeman' on the beat. Nothing goes in or out of the article without his OK, which he calls "consensus"--but only HE determines when that consensus is attained. . . if EVER! I now understand how it works. Thanks for the education.

No one has a veto, decisions are made by consensus, not by unanimity. Four or five editors have objected to your edit, not just me, so there clearly is no consensus for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A number of you are blocking critical new information from entering the CMT article. That's obvious. You're insisting on a 1977 status quo, one chock full of POV. OK, here's the deal to everybody reading this: I'm going to do whatever it takes to break that embargo on new information and on NPOV. If it takes another edit war. Several edit wars. Or edit warring forever. If I get banned in the process, so be it. I'm acting on principle here, and know that Misplaced Pages will be the beneficiary.

How about following the rules for a while, and appealing to a conflict resolution board instead? Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, there are wiki rules. But there's also "Ignore the rules" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means). "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.” The objectivity and integrity of Misplaced Pages are at stake here, folks. Loosen up, and allow Jesus mythicism a place at the table. After all, this is the "CMT" article.Renejs (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be for the first two suggestions but not the last ('77) because it implies that the situation has changed. It was a fringe theory back then and it still is today, with virtually no one supporting it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Bill, I beg to differ. The situation in 2015 is not at all the same as in 1977. Invoking the controversial word "fringe" isn't adequate. Most of the "serious scholars" today (OK, there aren't many of them--I'll grant you that!) weren't known to Grant. I don't see how we can use his 1977 view today.Renejs (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No objections here to either change, although, maybe, it might not be bad to maybe start that whole paragraph, "In 1977 classical historian Michael Grant..." as that might be the shortest way to include all the material, and give emphasis to its timing. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bill, does this address your objection? Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have too much objection to JC's '77 suggestion. What I'm almost certain that is going to happen, however, is that Rene is going use that to say something on the order of "that was then, but now it's more widely supported although still only a minority of scholars". And that is certainly not true. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your offhand conviction is totally false and even offensive. (DO you wonder why I'm so irritating? It's because I have to deal with so much BS on this talk page.) You know, they say that if you're looking for stones you won't see the flowers. . . So, if you don't like the CMT, there's a good chance you won't see evidence for it right in front of your face. In fact, there HAS been a considerable increase in the CMT in the last few decades, especially since 2000. I'm surprised I have to even note this. The names have now come up repeatedly: Brodie, Carrier, Price, Harpur. . . But don't take my word for it. You probably haven't spent much time with the reference section "Scholarly Citations" in support of the CMT, but if you read only THE VERY FIRST CITATION, you would learn that Maurice Casey PhD (not a mythicist, BTW) complains that "One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist." This was at the beginning of Casey's recent book against mythicism. So, hello, Bill! Reality check strongly desired. . .Renejs (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I'd like to ask Renejs if he really objects to restoring the full Grant quote as an interim measure. This would include the apostrophes surrounding the embedded quotes and the words "at any rate...", and add the words "in 1977" to the text introducing the quote. It would not entail agreement with this as the final version, and would not stop him from continuing to argue for deletion of the entire paragraph, or from adding POV, dubious or other applicable tags, or from appealing to a conflict resolution board. I strongly prefer the more complete version, but I can't very well insert it over Renejs's objection, at least not until we have a consensus, which we do not yet have. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been such a long wrangle over the definition of "expert vs non-expert", I think it would benefit the encyclopedia to reword the sentence "quoting Roderic Dunkerley's non-expert 1957 opinion" to read "quoting author Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion". Otherwise I can live with the Grant statement as it has been corrected - it is clearly wrong, but by quoting it in full and stating clearly that it is 40 years old, it accurately reflects the source and the reader can see how old it is and what it's made of. Wdford (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've mirrored Wdford's remark here because it goes beyond the RfC section below. That RfC remains open for anyone to comment on whether the CMT has been "annihilated" or not.

I think "author" is too broad. Dunkerley was a Christian apologist who wrote non-scholarly books, including novels--a sort of minor C.S. Lewis. I would therefore prefer: "quoting Christian apologist Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion".

Wdford writes that the Grant citation "is clearly wrong." I agree, as do Anthony and some other users. One reason the Grant citation is wrong (there are many reasons IMO) is that it does not reflect the situation today. It is misleading and false to include an opinion from 1977 in a contemporary article without providing some updating material. In other words, we have a choice: either we jettison Grant entirely or we update him as necessary.

The case with "annihilated" shows this. In the RfC no one has stepped forward to defend Grant on this score by claiming that the CMT actually has been "annihilated" today. Of course, that would be ridiculous, given that some scholars publicly endorse it. Carrier has summarized the current situation well: "There are at least six well-qualified experts, including two sitting professors, two retired professors, and two independent scholars with Ph.D.’s in relevant fields, who have recently gone on public record as doubting whether there really was a historical Jesus. I am one of them" (Bible and Interpretation, August 2014.)

Misplaced Pages has a policy of "not arguing with the source," but it also provides the opportunity to give balancing and alternative views from expert sources. Carrier is such an expert, and he is contemporary. Therefore--since some of us insist on keeping Grant's 1977 citation--I move that we add Carrier's more recent view. And make no mistake about it--Carrier IS an expert on the CMT. He is undoubtedly the best qualified person alive to produce the statement quoted above. So, what I propose, at this point in our discussion, is the following paragraph at the close of the Criticism section:

Writing in 1977, classical historian Michael Grant asserted, quoting Christian apologist Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion and Otto Betz's 1968 opinion, that the Christ-myth theory "has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars' . In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' — or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." The current situation is somewhat different, as mythicist Richard Carrier notes: "There are at least six well-qualified experts, including two sitting professors, two retired professors, and two independent scholars with Ph.D.’s in relevant fields, who have recently gone on public record as doubting whether there really was a historical Jesus. I am one of them" (Bible and Interpretation, August 2014).

Renejs (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean a whole 6 "well-qualified experts"??? And do the two sitting professors teach at accredited universities? At any rate, that merely means that about 99.99% reject it. The situation has, therefore, certainly not changed. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, the reader now has an accurate version of what Grant wrote. But, of course, several of us wonder what we're still doing with this 1977 statement by Grant. Anyway, the "annihilated" part is incorrect today, so that either needs to be deleted or updated. Remember, this isn't a history of the CMT section, so we can't just give a (now incorrect) 1977 opinion without an update to reflect the current situation. I made a proposal (2 paragraphs up) adding Carrier's statement showing that the CMT is certainly not "annihilated." There's been no feedback on that. If someone has another suggestion, let us know. Otherwise, I propose we put in the paragraph as it reads above.Renejs (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, how could I ignore Bill the Cat's statement that 99.99% of (whom?) reject the CMT. What we're addressing here is that the CMT has not been "annihilated."Renejs (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You do a fine job of ignoring what virtually all scholars have to say. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm entirely aware that the vast majority of scholars don't espouse the CMT ("virtually all" is too strong, IMO). What you are ignoring is that's not what we're talking about here. The issue at hand is that the CMT has not been "annihilated." Got it? No one has countered this. Therefore, this part of Grant needs updating--as per the above. Renejs (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the CMT is compared to the theory that the moon is made of green cheese then, yes, it has been annihilated. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bill, I don't share your sense of humor, and I take this very seriously. Comparing the CMT to the moon made of green cheese doesn't cut it, and I consider that an insult. Anyone who thinks the CMT has been "annihilated" is in deep denial. Your revert is pure obstructionism. Of course, we're not going to allow a refusal to accept a simple fact hold this entire community hostage. The CMT has obviously not been "annihilated"--as Carrier's quote makes clear and as other users have noted already on this talk page.

On the edit summary you noted no "consensus." This was precisely the problem we had with Meijering in the recent ANI proceedings--he insisted on a consensus for removal of material which was clearly false. He was proven wrong. You're doing the same thing in reverse--insisting on a consensus to add material which is clearly true (the Carrier quote)--and also clearly necessary, because the Grant "annihilated" part is now false (and it was never true--see the section on this talk page dedicated to "annihilated" for more. . .). BTW, the Grant quote does not itself enjoy anything like a consensus.

Requiring a consensus works both ways. It's a both or neither situation: Grant + update, or no Grant. We've shown that the very old Grant quote cannot stand alone. The bottom line is that if some of us won't accept the Carrier quote, then some of us won't accept the Grant quote. The Carrier simply balances the false "annihilation" in the Grant. People can always suggest another formulation, expansion, etc., now or later, but nobody's done so thus far.

I hope all of this isn't too complex for you. You need to come up with something more constructive than "green cheese"--or self revert.Renejs (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7 has reverted the Carrier quote twice in two days. That quote has consensus for it was on this talk page days ago and no one objected--not even Bill. He simply says that belief in the CMT is like "the theory that the moon is made out of green cheese"--a very POV opinion, and he maintains on this basis that "yes, it has been annihilated" (above). This is an obviously absurd position for the CMT is fact, given the scholars now advocating for it (as shown by Carrier). I now doubt Bill's objectivity and strongly question his ability to help produce an NPOV article. Maybe it's time to consider ANI proceedings against him. Renejs (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The mere fact that your edit has been reverted shows that there's no consensus on this point.

What's more, I don't agree with you that Grant's quote is false. You're unduly focused on the word "annihilated". Grant's sentence is a strongly-worded statement that the CMT has almost no acceptance in academia--a point which is not contradicted by Carrier's statement that two current profs, two retired profs, and two independent scholars support the CMT. In fact, that's good evidence that the CMT is marginal--Carrier names only a handful of supporters, some of whom--independent scholars--are by definition outside academia.

Nor do I think the quote from Carrier belongs in a "Criticism" section. The point of a "criticism" section is to cover the views of the critics, rather than to argue against them. In fact, the way Carrier's quote is being used--to argue against Grant--is a violation of the no original research policy, because it makes it seem as if Carrier is refuting Grant when that is clearly not his purpose in the source article. For the article to say, in Misplaced Pages's voice, on the basis of Carrier's statement, that "The current situation is somewhat different," is also original research, unless Carrier said that in the original source. Even so, Carrier's assessments of the popularity (or lack thereof) of the CMT should not simply be repeated as fact, because different assessments can easily be found.

I am open to including the Carrier quote somewhere in the article, but not as a refutation of Grant, and not as an impartial statement of the popularity of the CMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Just as Akhilleus and Bill the Cat 7 have pointed out: there is no consensus whatsoever for the change Renejs keeps trying to push through.Jeppiz (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The ANI discussion mentioned above demonstrated clearly that "consensus" can be used by POV pushers to obstruct improvements in Misplaced Pages. What trumps alleged need for consensus (and procedure of all kind, BTW--i.e., "rules") is verifiable fact. Grant was and is wrong--easily proven by Carrier (re: "annihilated"). That's why he has to be amended or to go bye-bye. The "very abundant evidence to the contrary" is also pure POV. Pushing to keep the Grant in 2015 is astonishing. It's pushing a rock up a hill that's getting steeper, because more scholars are coming on board with the CMT all the time. The situation changes, and Misplaced Pages has to change with it. Renejs (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you knew there wasn't any consensus for your version, but you still claimed there was a consensus. Not because it was true, but because you disagree with Misplaced Pages's policies. All policies can be misused, but can I remind you that you're the one defending a discredited fringe theory with virtually no academic support, and those you call "POV-pushers" are trying to apply the ideas of using reliable sources to represent the actual academic consensus. As a single-purpose account with a heavy conflict of interest who just admitted you deliberately lied about there being a consensus to get rid of something you dislike, you're not really in the position to put yourself above the rules. Jeppiz (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"? I suppose you consider Carrier, Brodie, and Price unreliable. Oh well. I see why we have a problem communicating.

"Deliberately lied"? You've gone over the edge, Jep. Renejs (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've gone over the edge? That's rich. Previously, you have openly declared you will disregard Misplaced Pages policies and edit

war for the WP:TRUTH and in your edit summary you claimed there was a consensus but when called out, you instead say that consensuses are bad. It's really quite simple, Rene. Misplaced Pages operates under certain rules. You've made it very clear you don't like them, but that does not give you the right to ignore them. If you feel my "deliberately lied" is wrong, then perhaps you'd care to explain why you first claimed a consensus in your edit summary even though you admit on the talk page you knew full well there was no consensus.Jeppiz (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to condemn. There is consensus for the content of the Carrier quote being correct. I proposed that addition on this talk page days before adding it to the article, and gave ample time for everyone to comment. That's "consensus" in my book. NOBODY offered any objection or even any comment (except Bill's pet slam about the CMT and green cheese). But you say there was no "consensus" to ADD it? Like Meiering, do you need a singing telegram? What was the point of putting it on the talk page if it wasn't to ADD it? Renejs (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing another editor's comments on a talk page is very revealing, Anselm. I'm quite surprised and now know who you are. I won't forget. Renejs (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Need to recharge

Hello all,

I've been badly shaken by what happened in the past few weeks and at ANI. The whole area of early Christianity and Christian origins has been a poisonous minefield for years, but so far I had been willing to put in an effort to help fix things. After what happened in the past few weeks however, I won't feel safe editing in this area until something like what User:Robert McClenon has proposed () is instituted. In the highly charged atmosphere surrounding this subject problems should not be allowed to fester, and good-faith but misguided attempts to do the right thing that end up doing the wrong thing instead should not be allowed to escalate out of control. People have been hurt by this, and that shouldn't happen. ANI looks like too slow a mechanism to deal with this.

For my own sanity I need to take a long break. I'll still check in occassionally, and maybe even contribute a little bit, but in the near future I won't be following this page closely anymore. A couple of discussions in which I've been involved are still open, but for now I just can't bring myself to take an active part in them anymore. It may take a long time for me to answer questions asked of me here, but should anyone want to contact me directly they're welcome.

I'd like to help with Robert's efforts, but for now I just don't have the energy anymore. Maybe after I've recharged my mental and emotional batteries.

I wish you all well, and hope to see you again more regularly in the future if Robert McClenon's advice is followed. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the ANI thread Martijn refers to is here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Has the CMT been “annihilated” today?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The purpose of this RfC is to gather opinions on what to do with the first sentence of the Grant citation at the end of the “Criticism” section: “ has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'” (which is itself a citation from the non-academic Roderic Dunkerley’s 1957 book Beyond the Gospels).

Even if it were true in 1977 (and how could it have been, since nothing that is “annihilated” survives another 40 years?) this statement by classicist Michael Grant is evidently not true today, for the CMT is very much 'alive' as we see from the section “Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT” and from the section of the article "21st Century." For these reasons, either this part of the Grant citation must (a) be deleted; or (b) if retained, then information must be added clarifying why it is not true today.

As we have recently been reminded through our recent lengthy feuding over the “no serious scholar” part of the Grant citation, it is never a good idea to advocate for known false content, or to deliberately retain such content in Misplaced Pages (even if the content is from a scholarly source)--especially through persistence, reverts, and edit warring. The strongest sanctions can be the penalty for such cases of ‘editing in reverse.’ In the final analysis, Misplaced Pages does its best to deliver up to date, verifiably correct information.Renejs (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Grant paragraph is out of date and misleading and should go. I've clarified for the reader in this edit who said what when, but unless I hear a good argument for this anachronism to sit in a current description of the scholarship, I'll be deleting it in a few days. It now reads, accurately,

  Writing in 1977, classical historian Michael Grant said, quoting Roderic Dunkerley's non-expert 1957 opinion and Otto Betz's 1968 opinion, the Christ-myth theory "has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars' (Dunkerley). In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' (Betz) — or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Seriously? Who cares what Grant thinks in 1977 about what other writers said even decades earlier? This is a tendentious misuse of an out-dated source. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, Anthony, and certainly believe that the whole paragraph is indefensible today. But (as you see from the next entries) not everyone is on board. . . So we may have to go one statement, phrase--even word--at a time, taking the elements individually. It's a longer procedure, but more thorough.Renejs (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why is Dunkerley specifically labelled as 'not an expert' and unlike Rene Salm, Earl Doherty etc.? Especially as Grant, who undoubtedly was an expert, apparently accepted Dunkerley's views. As for 'misleading', are you suggesting that there are more than a 'very few' scholars who posit it? I can find, on this whole page, Thompson and Brodie who can be considered 'serious scholars'. I'm doubtful that the revisions by Mr Cole meet NPOV as he seems to be trying to say that only non-scholars suggest it is a fringe theory, which is clearly not the case and is not tenable even using recent sources (Casey, Ehrmann). As for being annihilated - the mere fact that some people refuse to engage meaningfully with scholarship and repeatedly dismiss things that don't fit their worldview as lies does not mean that their arguments have not been annihilated. (Edited on mature reflection, because I've been quite worried on doing some research on Cole's behaviour - he has even suggested that Salm has 'subject expertise', which is not something I think most experts, would agree on although I admit I found only this on a Google search without plundering JSTOR for rebuttal articles). 109.156.156.186 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond to the part of the above comment which addresses the point of this RfC. The anonymous writer uses the famous double negative: the above "does not mean that arguments have not been annihilated." I disagree, but that doesn't matter. What we need is somebody to show evidence that the CMT has been annihilated.Renejs (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Grant quote is accurate. If you want to replace it with a quote saying the same thing, be my guest. Also, keep in mind that the CMT is fringe and that Rene is attempting to make it into a minority view, which it cleary is not. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

'What we need is somebody to show evidence that the CMT has been annihilated.'

It has been repeatedly shown. Casey, Ehrmann, Dickson, even Carrier have shown that normal historical methods dispense with the Christ Myth Theory (Carrier, of course, didn't let that stop him inventing a whole new, wildly implausible historical methodology to try and support his ideas). Merely refusing to engage with reality is not a refutation to that annihilation. But there - I am talking to somebody who thinks that (1) Earl Doherty is a scholar (2) Tom Harpur has a PhD (3) Maurice Casey wrote in support of mythicism (those three on the evidence of this talk page) and (4) that archaeological evidence that doesn't fit his pet theories doesn't exist (on the evidence of Ken Dark, whose work you claimed to be using). I'm not quite sure why I'm bothering, except insofar as I know how much wikipedia is used today and therefore I think it important to try and fight pseudoscholarship wherever I see it.

Most of the above is total POV: "Carrier uses "wildly implausible historical methodology"; the CMT refuses "to engage with reality". . . And yes, the writer is correct that Harpur lacks a PhD though he taught religion at the college level. But no, I never thought Casey "wrote in support of mythicism".

The only sentence which might address this RfC is: "It has been repeatedly shown. Casey, Ehrmann , Dickson, even Carrier have shown that normal historical methods dispense with the Christ Myth Theory." In fact, they have not shown this at all. Carrier is a historian and also a mythicist, so his name in the foregoing list is a mystery to me because he certainly does not "dispense with the CMT" but actively espouses it (for the last several years, at least).

As for Ehrman, Brodie (Beyond, p. 229) faults Ehrman precisely for using unscholarly methodology in Did Jesus Exist? Brodie accuses Ehrman of not taking advantage of research since the 1980s and for basing his writing on research of the 50s--exactly what some people wish to do with the Grant citation today!Renejs (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

'The anonymous writer uses the famous double negative'

True, but in some cases a double negative can be correct, as in this case. Your arguments have been annihilated. I believe you are a musician - it is a bit like a G double flat. Not used a lot, but remarkably effective in the right context (Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music springs to mind - that wonderful 'dark as Erebus' moment).

109.156.156.186 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment _{tl:dr It is accurate, balanced, in the correct section and should stay.} I don't know that the positions on either side of this dispute have articulated their concerns very well. As best as I can tell, it seems that the objections lay in whether the quote is an accurate description of the current state of scholarship on the Historicity of Jesus and the CMT. While I personally find the arguments of Ehrman, Carrier, and especially Price compelling, it is my understanding that their views (and mine as well) are best classified as fringe. I don't have a citation on the issue but, as a personal rule of thumb, if one can name all the proponents of a particular position in a large topic area, then that position is certainly fringe. As a percentage of the scholarship, I would suspect that CMT proponents have convinced fewer people than the creationists have, and that is certainly a fringe position. I think the quote meets wp:weight, via it's accuracy, dating and placement in the article. --Adam in MO Talk 09:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I note your opinion on "fringe" (a different topic) etc. But the question here is: Has the Christ Myth Theory been "annihilated" in scholarship today? 'Annihilated' is one of the strongest words in the English vocabulary. It is very different from 'dispensing with something' (above) or "fringe." One notes that the Dunkerley quote in Grant uses the words "answered and annihilated." I think a good case could certainly be made that the CMT has been "answered" by mainstream scholarship. But how could it be "annihilated" if the CMT is still around--openly professed by a few scholars and increasingly taken seriously by others? Sure, there are lots of little bible colleges and places like Liberty University where everyone will say that the CMT has been "annihilated." But that doesn't make Carrier, Brodie, Price, Eisenman, Lemche, Thompson, Davies, et al just disappear! These scholars are still walking around and writing, even if conservatives wish to "dispense with" them. An objective view on this matter will take us out of the Bible Belt and will dispense with the word "annihilated."Renejs (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The prose of the proposed addition doesn't present the quote as if it were he were speaking for all scholars. The proposal, as it stands, communicates the findings of one author 40 years ago. Obviously CMT hasn't been "annihilated".--Adam in MO Talk 17:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The same ad hominem attacks as usual, I see. The repeated inisuations that people disagree because they are "conservatives" from "the Bible Belt". I don't think there's anything particularly conservative about relying on actual scholarship and trying to adhere to standard Misplaced Pages policies.Jeppiz (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't let this pass, Jeppiz. . . Standard Wiki practice is first and foremost to ensure up to date, verifiable content. I strongly suggest you give this some thought. The bottom line of this RfC is simple: "Annihilated" does not reflect the current state of the CMT. Adam has acknowledged this obvious fact. It's time for others to do so as well.Renejs (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone in this discussion (the title of which you set) said we should use 'annihilated'? It's a very strange weird in an academic discussion. CMT has been thoroughly debunked, though. It's an opinion almost exclusively held by non-experts in the face of almost unanimous academic consensus to the contrary.Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that Renejs is referring to "conservative" Bible scholars. That is an accurate usage of the term. As far as I know CMT proponents are all described as "liberal" scholars. The term is different than it's usage in politics. For example Robert M. Price is a "liberal" Bible scholar and a Mythicist but he is politically "conservative". I think this talk page could use a little good faith from everyone.--Adam in MO Talk 18:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, Adam. I was not being ad hominem which means to attack a person's character. In fact, I didn't mention anybody in the note of which Jeppiz accused me of being ad hominem--just places like Libery Univ and Bible Belt colleges. I was being very objective by saying what actually happens in such religiously conservative places.Renejs (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, your claim is just downright dishonest and you know it. I don't think there's a single US or UK university, conservative or liberal, Christian or atheist, where CMT has anything even close to majority support. There are literally a handful of academics in favor of CMT, which is precisely why the article devote most of its space to "non-experts with opinions". Trying to imply that this is a debate between "religiously conservative places" and "liberal places" (no matter how the terms are used) is quite simply wrong.Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

CommentI think that my view is somewhere in the middle here. "Annihilated", is not an accurate representation of the current scholarship. But the proposed addition is not presented as though it were. The addition is in a criticism and accurately reflects the citation. Take for example two statements: "Creationism has strong scientific support." and "Ken Ham wrote that Creationism has strong scientific support." The first statement is patently false, the later is supported by sources. It seems that this is the same situation. CMT has not been annihilated but the statement "...Michael Clark claims..." is true. He did claim that. This is why it should be included.--Adam in MO Talk 21:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not enough to say, "Well, we're just quoting Grant and he really said that in 1977." Why? Because this section is supposed to reflect the contemporary criticism, not that from 1977! This is not a "history of the CMT section." Why should anybody today be interested in what a tangential scholar (Grant was not a biblicist) thought about the CMT forty years ago?

And here we have a problem. Until the very recent urging of myself and a few others, the Grant citation has always read as if it were from today. That's of course very misleading. Grant's statement slams the CMT so beautifully that a lot of people will fight hard to retain it--that fight is what's happening now. People have also fought to keep it as misleading as before--it's taken three weeks of fighting just to get the words "Writing in 1977. . ." added!

Since the "annihilated" part of the Grant statement is NOW patently false, it has to either (a) be deleted or (b) amended with some sort of additional explanation to bring it up to date. Here's one example:

Writing in 1977, classical historian Michael Grant asserted that the Christ-myth theory "has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. However, today a few scholars espouse the Christ Myth Theory (see above), and an additional few describe themselves as “agnostic” in this regard. Grant also stated. . .

In other words, I'm not opposed to keeping the "annihilated" part in the Criticism section IF we also tell the reader how and why this has changed. (BTW, the rest of the Grant citation still has to be looked at.) Renejs (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Rene wrote "Why should anybody today be interested in what a tangential scholar (Grant was not a biblicist) thought about the CMT forty years ago?" I can see some merit in that argument. So keeping in line with Rene's idea that we're not interested in "tangential scholars" or people writing "40 years ago", I move we remove all those people in the article who aren't scholars, only "tangential scholars" and/or wrote earlier than 1980.Jeppiz (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to take Grant's quote out of the article, because a longstanding concern raised by some editors here is that the work of biblical scholars is biased and should therefore be disregarded. I don't think this is true by any means, but since Grant was a classicist, not a biblical scholar, he is a good illustration that by the standard methods of ancient history, there is no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been such a long wrangle over the definition of "expert vs non-expert", I think it would benefit the encyclopedia to reword the sentence "quoting Roderic Dunkerley's non-expert 1957 opinion" to read "quoting author Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion". Otherwise I can live with the Grant statement as it has been corrected - it is clearly wrong, but by quoting it in full and stating clearly that it is 40 years old, it accurately reflects the source and the reader can see how old it is and what it's made of. Wdford (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Remove "non-expert" - where are we getting this from, anyway? A non-academic book does not imply a non-expert author. It's not clear what constitutes an "expert" in this context, and in any case we would need a reliable source for the claim that Dunkerley is not an expert. StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree - can we remove the words "non-expert" ASAP? Does anybody object? Wdford (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

In this particular context, I don't see the point in keeping it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hermann Detering in Germany

Sorry, my English is very bad. But I want show to the actually proponent in Germany: Hermann Detering with this books The fals Paulus (1995) and False Witnesses (2011) - both only in German. With this two books Detering makes a great problem for the mainstream biblical scholarship of Germany. More information on this webseite www.radikalkritik.de Detering should stay under Notable proponents. Greetings! (I write from the german WP) --Valtental (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga

as a notable proponent from Nederlands. Show en:Wp and for more information de:Wp. I'm from Germany. I can't create an edit in English language. --Valtental (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead is bloating

I see some editors are adding copious amounts of stuff to the lead - is this bloat really appropriate? Wdford (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I tidied up the lead still further, and added some links. Wdford (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Systematic POV violations

This article is the subject of an extensive POV-push by a few single purpose accounts and needs a complete restructuring. Some of the most glaring issues

• If somebody disagrees with CMT, like Roderic Dunkerley, they are explicitly labelled "non-expert" and dismissed with. Meanwhile, almost all proponents of CMT are just as much non-experts but are given extensive coverage in the article. As per WP:RS, I have no problem with the article dismissing Dunkerley, but the same dismissal should be reserved for the whole gang of non-experts that include Rene Salm, Alvar Ellegård, Dorothy Murdock, Earl Doherty, etc.
• In rather classic name-dropping, people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, none of whom even supported the idea that Jesus never existed. Trying to bolster the credibility is this way is just dishonest.
• WP:NPOV is clear in stating that we can have articles on topics such as CMT and other fringe theories, but that we must make sure that even a casual reader understands that it's not a mainstream view, not even the view of a significant minority. Looking at some other fringe theories such as Holocaust denial or Obama is a Muslim, they satisfy NPOV by making the actual situation very clear. The balance in this article is very much skewed, with an overly long treatment of non-experts parading as experts and a very short (in comparison) criticism section.Jeppiz (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead clearly states that "there remains a strong consensus in historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived." I'm sure the meaning of this sentence is self-explanatory to the casual reader? Wdford (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Further to Jeppiz above, this article is about the Christ Myth Theory, not the Historicity of Jesus. In the Historicity of Jesus article an expert is somebody who knows about the history of that place and time, or a person who knows about the history and credibility of the relevant Bible passages. In the CMT article, an expert is somebody who knows about the CMT. Since Doherty helped to formulate the CMT, he is automatically a leading expert on the CMT. What he might or might not know about the history of 1st century Palestine is a separate issue, for that separate article. It has long been a concern here that people who know little about the CMT and who care less, are paraded as "experts" on the CMT. This article is about the CMT itself, including the history thereof, but it does also state clearly that most scholars of the history of 1st century Palestine reject most of the gospel stories but accept that a historical Jesus of some description did exist. This would satisfy most neutral people, so perhaps we need to question the agenda here in proposing that the proponents of the CMT be denied a mention in an article about the theory they helped to formulate, merely on the grounds that they don't have a PhD in a subject they don't believe in? Wdford (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the problems. There isn't a "strong consensus". Rather, the CMT is almost universally rejected. Therefore, The CMT is not simply a minority opinion, but is fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Richard Dawkins. He was listed under proponents without evidence, and so needed to be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. StAnselm (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove large chunks of the article without consensus. I'm referring to the Dawkins section. IMO he has some valid points which should be in the article. There's no consensus for their removal, so I'm putting this material back in. Anselm writes that his inclusion is contrary to WP:BLPREMOVE. In what way? Please be more specific. Also, Anselm writes that "He was listed under proponents without evidence." But there are several quotes by Dawkins (that's evidence) relative to the CMT which are importantly show that the theory has received attention from notables outside the field. Maybe the info by Dawkins should be attenuated or moved to another section--but total deletion (the nuclear option) is unjustified without discussion and consensus.Renejs (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP policy requires that he be identified as a proponent of the theory in reliable sources. Discussing the theory is not enough, since the heading is "proponents". The deletion is more than justified; it is required - did you read the policy? StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And at any rate, citing Dawkins about Classical history is like citing Ken Ham about evolution. Completely wrong field, only inserted out of fandom. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comments, moving forward

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

To make the article more readable and informative, I would suggest removing both outdated proponents and opponents, except in a brief "History" section. Furthermore, I suggest removing all "amateurs with opinions" and focus the article on the views of academics in the field (again, both proponents and opponents) in line with WP:RS and WP:NPOV.Jeppiz (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reasoning

This is my somewhat longer explanation to the RFC above, which I've tried to keep strictly neutral. I think everybody can agree that this page has stalled, and even the slightest edits lead to long discussions, arguments, and accusations of POV thrown at anyone who disagree with one or the other user. It's also safe to say that no "side" (so to speak) has without fault. It seems everybody agree that sources they don't like should be removed if they are too old. Similarly, everybody has expressed misgivings about non-experts who don't share their opinion. I would also hope everybody could agree that Misplaced Pages is about neutral and general principles, so an argument to remove old sources or non-experts should be equally valid whether we agree with that source or not. Based on that, I'd like to propose the following changes:

• Removing all old sources (including Grant, who has been debated, but also all other sources that are from the 70s or earlier) except in a History of CMT where the most notable early proponents are identified, their views summarized and, when applicable, refuted in case later research has done so.-
• Removing all non-experts. Articles should build on reliable sources, which means people with an academic reputation in the relevant field. There is no reason to include "amateurs with opinions" regardless of whether they support or reject CMT. Misplaced Pages operates under WP:RS (sources should be reliable) and under WP:NPOV (articles should give an accurate picture of the academic balance in the field). Opinionated amateurs, no matter whether they are Christian apologetics or atheists, whether they are pro-CMT or anti-CMT, should be removed. Possibly a short section could make a brief mention of the 2-3 most famous non-experts, but in a very brief format and clearly labelled as such for the reader.

I think these changes would improve the article quite a bit, as it's in rather poor shape and leading experts and complete amateurs are mixed together in a way making it hard for the reader to get an accurate picture.Jeppiz (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Since it is based on well-established Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose One big problem is that anybody who propounds the CMT (even today) is immediately pushed out of academia (cf. Brodie as the latest example, Bauer as an earlier, many other names possible). So, the standard definition of "expert" as an "academic with a reputation in the relevant field" doesn't cut it with the CMT. Ever wonder why the major proponents of the CMT are and have been OUTSIDE academia? They may even have relevant PhD's (Price, Carrier, many others) but they don't get a job, publishing contracts, prestige, etc. Doherty's a great example of someone who has played a major and pioneering role in the modern development of the CMT. But, by all conventional standards, his opinion shouldn't matter at all--he a self-published "amateur" with no PhD. Three strikes. However, I strongly support your first point: "removing old sources" (e.g. Grant). We should be able to do better. Renejs (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:GREATWRONGS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Renejs has a major conflict of interest as he is one of the "opinionated amateurs". It's perhaps understandable he does not want to remove himself, but once again, the conflict of interest is immense. As for Brodie, he wasn't pushed out of academia. He is a priest, I could understand why a Christian order felt it could not have a spokesperson claiming Jesus didn't exist. And in case I was unclear, of course I meant that both Price and Carrier should remain. More than that, I think a revised version of the article with all the amateurs taken out could even provide some more room to develop Price and Carrier. So yes, Renejs should be taken out of the article (and that should happen in either case given his active involvement) alongside other amateurs with opinions (once again, we have WP:RS for a reason) but the actual article should remain and should of course present an overview of CMT as put forward by WP:RS proponents. The idea here is to make the article better for the reader, not to censor any view.Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Umm, I think you need to read up on the details re: Brodie. He was pushed out of academia. He was founder and for many years Director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick, Ireland until the appearance of his 2012 Beyond the Quest of the Historical Jesus. "Immediately after the book’s publication Brodie was (for the first time) forbidden to teach" ( by yours truly--with embedded link).

As for your weird ideas about culling out of the CMT article whoever you choose to call a "non-expert," I've already given my opinion: oppose.Renejs (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not whom I call non-expert, it's following WP:RS. But ok, you've voiced your opinion. Renejs opposes removing Renejs from the article, true to WP:COI-form. Your opinion is clear.Jeppiz (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom and Tgeorgescu, however I wouldn't be opposed to a section on "CMT as a cultural phenomenon" or something along those lines. My gut feeling is that discussion of notable non-expert works which advocate CMT need to be referenced somewhere in this page. De Guerre (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: The big problem is working out who is an amateur and who isn't. I assume you are including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens among the amateurs. What about Richard Carrier? StAnselm (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The relevant standard is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. By that standard, Carrier is an expert. De Guerre (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite know what part of that guideline you mean - in any case, it's more about identifying publications than identifying people. Certainly, we could cite Carrier's PhD thesis, but I wonder if he is an expert in this area. Nothing comes up in Google Scholar. It doesn't look lie his work has been published in "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Incredible. Simply incredible. You're POV is greatly showing, Anselm. Richard Carrier is an "amateur" on the CMT? Wowie.Could you give some rationale for that astonishing declaration? It would be difficult to get much more ridiculous--like saying Muhammad Ali was an amateur at boxing. Renejs (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Misplaced Pages doesn't really have the concept of an "expert", merely a "reliable source". Reliability is a property of a source, not a person. Nonetheless, surely On the Historicity of Jesus is a peer-reviewed book published by a mainstream academic publisher? De Guerre (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes - thank you, that's what I was after. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: This appears to be another in a succession of attempts to make the CMT article disappear. The “history of the theory” needs to stay in full, for two overlapping reasons: a) the article is about the CMT, so it needs to describe the CMT properly, and b) the CMT is not one simple theory but an assembly of slightly different theories from different proponents, ranging in scope from Wells to Carrier, so for the reader to get a proper understanding of the CMT we need to include all facets. Secondly, the issue of “reliable sources” is a poisoned question – as discussed previously, the people who are the best sources about the CMT are those who invented the CMT, not the critics with a strong contrary POV. There is no such thing as a PhD in CMT, and having a PhD in mainstream biblical studies does not make one an expert in the CMT – probably quite the opposite. For example, Carrier is a leading proponent of the CMT, but an editor has now questioned whether Carrier can be considered to be an expert in his own theory. It seems some editors want to deny the proponents of the CMT a voice in the article about their own theory, and allow only comments from the opponents. How could that possibly be in line with Wikipolicy? Wdford (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is extremely well written. Thank you. Wdford. Those trained in standard Biblical Studies curricula have no exposure at all to the CMT--if they've ever even heard of it. Even Ehrman is woefully unaquainted with it's literature and wrote a very poor book attempting to combat it (see here for CMT rebuttals:). Renejs (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment In case I was unclear when writing the RfC, of course I meant that both Price and Carrier should remain. More than that, I think a revised version of the article with all the amateurs taken out could even provide some more room to develop people like Price and Carrier. Amateurs with opinions should be taken out just as in any other articke (once again, we have WP:RS for a reason) but the actual article should remain and should of course present an overview of CMT as put forward by WP:RS proponents. The idea here is to make the article better for the reader, not to censor any view.Jeppiz (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure by including only experts is really the way to go. Almost every person writing pro-CMT books are non-experts and, as WDFord says, the people who are the best sources about the CMT are those who invented the CMT. I think it would be best if we take WDFord's approach and then make it perfectly clear that the CMT is fringe and that proponents of it don't get teaching positions in accredited universities because of it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe it, Bill. I agree with you! Wow. See, I also agree with Wdford's approach. Renejs (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not opposed to a short section about notable non-scholars who advanced CMT, written according to WP:FRIND. As an overview of who counts as a scholar, we could start from Ehrman's review of notable CMT proponents: he counts two New Testament scholars and some more historians. If he is somewhat outdated, his list of scholars could be amended by consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! I suggested that already in the first post, but unfortunately Renejs chose to misrepresent what I had written and then attack his own misrepresentation of what I had said. We should mention some prominent non-scholars, but we should not mention everyone who has commented on it, as we're currently doing.Jeppiz (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment On reflection, I think that part of the confusion is that this article is trying to do two things. CMT is both an academic position (in the sense that even though it's clearly WP:FRINGE, there is WP:RS, some of which is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which advocates it) and a cultural phenomenon (in the sense that there is notable WP:QS). Everything I said in my support above I still agree with, however, I'm framing this debate in terms of "removing non-experts" probably isn't helpful. The goal of a reorganisation should be to clearly separate RS from notable QS (and, of course, historical opinions, which is a third category), and to remove only (and all) non-notable QS. De Guerre (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Figures who were part of academia and then "shoved out" would qualify as scholars. They would be included (if possibly labelled as fringe), while those who were not a part of academia before and after making their claims should be excluded. Going through just the 21st century section, and assuming that an appropriate scholar would be one who has a degree in New Testament history, Classical history, or something similar, Brodie, Carrier, Doherty, Harpur, Thompson, and even Price would be appropriate to be included -- But Hitchens, Murdock, and Salm are about as appropriate to include as Ken Ham. That wouldn't drastically cut down the article, but would turn this from a piece of CMT evangelism into a neutral article about the actual scholarship instead of the crackpots. If any of the cranks merit their own article (like Acharya S), we can link to their views in some section clearly labelled "non-academic views." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support . Bladesmulti (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Highly confusing

It's really impossible to do anything with this article, as some users change their claims as it suits their arguments. When we discussed whether to mark this as a fringe theory, some people shouted No!!! and argued that there is WP:RS support for CMT. When there is a discussion to remove amateurs and focus on the WP:RS sources, some of the same people again shout No!!, and now arguing that we cannot do that because there is no academic support. You quite frankly cannot have it both ways. Either there is no WP:RS support (and we should therefore mark this as a fringe theory, any theory with no academic support is a fringe theory) or there is WP:RS support and we can write an article based on those sources without needing to resort to people who fail WP:RS. As Tgeorgescu wrote, it really seems that some users use this article Right Great Wrongs, convinced that they represent the WP:TRUTH and it must be defended against an evil conspiracy who try to silence all opposition.Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this is that Jeppiz is equating "academic support" with "reliable sources." That doesn't work for the CMT which, simply put, for the past 200 years has been deliberately--and very tendentiously--excluded from academic curricula. Umm, that's POV not from Misplaced Pages but from the whole academic world. Yeah, you heard it here first. . . Renejs (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't work for the CMT. Academic support considers the CMT like the theory that the moon is made of green cheese (among other derogatory conclusions). Do you have a problem with academics excluding such nonsense from the curricula? So, what exactly is your point? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I might suggest a radical alternative: deletion of the entire page. You read correctly: delete the entire CMT article. Why? Because it does not meet the criteria for WP:NOTABILITY. (See also: .) There we read: "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Misplaced Pages." IMO, this does not exist for the CMT--or arguably so (the operative words are "significant coverage").

Even fringe articles need to be "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (same link above). Is this the case with the CMT? So, I leave it up to consensus. We could start an RfC on "Does the CMT article meet WP:NOTABILITY or should it be deleted?" Renejs (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Aw, is someone upset that their pet theories don't merit inclusion in the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We do, however, have sources that, subject matter ignored, would otherwise be appropriate to cite on the field of Classical or Early Christian history. The majority of the 21st century proponents have some sort of relevant degree -- removing the rest just happens to cut out Rene Salm, which is the real reason why Renejs has a problem with it. Narrowing the article down to proponents who have relevant degrees should satisfy both sides: it makes the CMT side look respectable while also not over representing its prominence among scholars by allowing every Tom, Dick, and Rene with a type writer to pretend they're a massive minority. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

More specific proposal of what should be kept and removed

The following figures must be removed from the 20th and 21st century sections (or at least merged into a one-paragraph "other authors" section that introduces them as not being scholars of the relevant field):

That eliminates about half of the current sections. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As previously noted, I think that the standard should be whether or not the proponent has published WP:SCHOLARSHIP on the topic, not necessarily what their degree was in. As luck would have it, a rough sample of the names in the list suggests to me that this proposal looks pretty close to that standard. De Guerre (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with some of this list, but people who have made a substantial contribution to the theory should be retained even if they do not have a PhD in biblical studies. It again comes back to the question of "who is a reliable source about the CMT - surely the people who invented the CMT are the most reliable sources about their own theory?" For example I would particularly suggest that Wells has to be retained - Ehrman spoke glowingly of him, and referred to him as a senior proponent of the CMT. Wdford (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment A big thanks to Ian.thomson for this list! Like De Guerre and Wdford, I too find it very helpful. I would also agree with Wdford that an argument probably could be made for mentioning Wells.Jeppiz (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've always thought we should follow the lead of secondary sources on the CMT when deciding who to include as a proponent. In other words, take a look at the treatments of the CMT by sources such as Albert Schweitzer, Maurice Goguel, William Weaver, Robert Van Voorst, and Bart Ehrman--who are all academic experts on the study of the historical Jesus--and see who they list as important proponents of the theory. They all treat J.M. Robertson, W.B. Smith, and Couchaud as important proponents, so our article should too. Expert sources like Weaver, Van Voorst, and Ehrman treat G.A. Wells and Robert M. Price as important proponents, so our article should too. Ehrman treats Carrier as an important proponent of the CMT, so our article should too.

On the other hand, writers like Remsburg, Hitchens, Salm, Murdock, are not treated as important proponents by secondary sources and so ought to be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Per suggestions above, and going with whether or not the section has secondary sources, the list would look more like:

That reduces those two sections by about two-thirds, but we would need to follow it by expanding with additional secondary and tertiary sources (which might restore a few of the cut sections). Per User:Bladesmulti's suggestion on my talk page, I'll do a rough draft of this and self-revert so we can get a better idea of what that looks like for discussion. It would not be the final version, as the remaining sections would need additional expanding from secondary and tertiary sources.

P.S. Just before I saved this, I noticed that the books section has a number of books that don't have articles, even though the section explicitly states the books are those we have articles for. I'm going to trim that first and not self revert on that. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall good, but I would not mention people who have only been mentioned briefly. As Wdford said, someone like Wells who is discussed at some length by WP:RS sources should most probably be kept in. But mentioning people like Ellegård just because they have been referred to in passing seems excessive (let's keep in mind that Ellegård was largely ignored and almost entirely dismissed by the few scholars asked to comment).Jeppiz (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If I wasn't going to self-revert, I'd check for sources outside the article (and actually check the sources in the article) to see what merits more/less inclusion, but otherwise I'm going to try for minimal effort. As it is, since we've got an article about Ellegård, I'm (just) guessing (perhaps incorrectly) that there might be secondary sources about his CMT work (or else I have to ask why we have that article). A bit against WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I didn't sleep well last night (had to prevent an electrical fire in my room at 2 am ...and about an hour later the cat finally smelled the ozone and decided to try to rescue me). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

We have an article about Ellegård because he was a notable academic in English philology, but that does not make him an WP:RS in history or anything else related to CMT.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The way to characterize the CMT is by impact on the field, not by credentials, peer-reviewed publications, etc., because the CMT (more correctly, "Jesus mythicism") is a phenomenon which has exclusively taken place outside of academia. I would propose two broad categories: (1) Proponents of the CMT (those who have publicly espoused the CMT AND who have had a considerable impact within the field--regardless of academic standing and degrees); and (2) Notable agnostics (non-related figures from any field who have publicly stated their openness to the CMT). I would further subdivide each category into: (a) those alive today; and (b) in history. I don't have time to set up a separate section for this, but basically would present it as follows:

(1) Proponents of the CMT (a) Alive today: • Earl Doherty - Probably the most influential CMT proponent alive today. Details the thesis that Jesus was an immaterial being executed in the spiritual realm. • Robert M. Price - PhD in Systematic Theology and New Testament studies. Argues in many books that the early Christians adopted the model for the figure of Jesus from popular Mediterranean dying-rising savior myths. • Thomas Brodie - PhD in theology, taught Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament studies. Publicly endorses the CMT in his 2012 book. • Richard Carrier - His 2014 book concludes that it is more likely that the earliest Christians were not inspired by a real person named Jesus but instead considered Jesus to be a celestial being known only through revelations. • Tom Harpur - Theologian, taught New Testament studies. Argues that Jesus is a myth and all of the essential ideas of Christianity originated in Egypt. • Frank Zindler. ("The Jesus the Jews Never Knew"). Examined the Jewish texts demonstrating that they had no knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth. • Dorothy M. Murdock - Much maligned, but she has a vocal following within the field today and should be included for that reason. • Michael Paulkovich ("No Meek Messiah"). • René Salm - No comment per COI.

(b) In history: • C. H. Dupuis. Author who considered Christianity “a fable with the same foundation as all the other solar religions.” • Bruno Bauer. The first "academic mythicist." • Allard Pierson. Founder of the Dutch Radical School, for whom the non-historicity of Jesus was obvious. • J.M. Robertson - The most incisive Jesus mythicist of the early 19th century ("Christianity and Mythology," etc.) • W.B. Smith - Wrote ground-breaking books on the CMT, but arguably less important than Robertson. • G.J.P.J. Bolland. ("De Evangelische Jozua") Argued that “Jesus” was derived from the Old Testament figure Joshua, son of Nun. • Arthur Drews - ("The Christ Myth"). The most famous CMT proponent of a century ago. Argued that no independent evidence for the historical existence of Jesus has ever been found outside the New Testament writings. • G. A. van Eysinga. Dutch "radical" who rejected the historicity of Jesus and also concluded that the Pauline writings were produced by disciples of Marcion. • Salomon Reinach. Endorsed the docetic view of Jesus: he was a spirit. • Samuel Lublinski. Argued that Christianity arose out of a syncretism of Judaism, mystery religions, gnosticism, and oriental influences. • Arthur Heulhard. Maintained that it was John the Baptist, not Jesus, who proclaimed himself the Christ. • Paul-Louis Couchoud - Had a major impact on the development of the CMT. Argued that Marcion wrote the first gospel after the Bar Kochba revolt (133 CE). • Prosper Alfaric ("The Problem of Jesus and Christian Origins"). Prof. of religion, excommunicated from the priesthood for his publications. Argued for Essene origin of Christianity and against the historicity of Jesus. • E. Dujardin, ("Ancient History Of The God Jesus") in four volumes. • Alvin Boyd Kuhn - American scholar of comparative religion. CMT author who influenced Harpur greatly. • Georges Ory. Influential French mythicist of the mid-19th century. Concludes that “Jesus Christ is a composite god.” • Alvar Ellegård - The principal proponent of the "Jesus lived 100 BCE" thesis. Identifies Jesus with the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls. • J. M. Allegro - Archaeologist and Philologist who worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Argued that the story of Jesus was based on the crucifixion of the Teacher of Righteousness in the scrolls.

(2) Notable agnostics sympathetic to the CMT: (a) Alive today: • Hermann Detering. German academic, Pauline mythicist with radical views on Christian origins. • G. A. Wells- A major British writer in the field, once a CMT proponent who has shifted his view to that of "agnostic" which is why he is in this category. • Thomas L. Thompson - European "minimalist." Co-editor of an important commentary on mythicism ("Is This Not the Carpenter?") • N. P. Lemche. Minimalist who is open to the CMT. • Philip Davies - States that the evidence for the historical Jesus is "fragile" and needs to be "tested." • Alexander Jacob - Professor of philosophy, focuses heavily on India and argues the mythological basis of Christianity. • Robert Eisenman. Redates the DSS to the first century CE and assigns James as the leading figure in "Christianity."

(b) In history: • G. Higgins. Argued that many religions are based on pseudohistory. • D. F. Strauss. ("The Life of Jesus"). Demonstrated the strong mythical element in the Jesus story. • G. Massey. Self-taught Egyptologist drawing parallels between the Jesus story and Egyptian antecedents. • Albert Schweitzer. Famously concluded that the the Jesus of history evaporates upon close examination. • G.R.S. Mead - A significant writer with an agnostic stance who, to my knowledge, did not openly argue the CMT but suggested that "Jesus" may have lived c. 100 BCE. • Bertrand Russell. Wrote that "historically it is quite doubtful that Jesus existed." • Christopher Hitchens. Maintained that "there is no reason to believe that ."

The above is not exhaustive but more defensible than the Thomson lists. Renejs (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dawkins should be added to the (2a) category: Notable agnostics alive today. Renejs (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The Thomson list is based on Misplaced Pages's rules, your suggestion is (as usual) preceded by a disclaimer about why we should ignore Misplaced Pages's rules. And it's not true that CMT has taken place outside academia, there are good academics who are CMT proponents. We should base the article on their work, and that is actually doing CMT a favour. Currently the serious work on CMT is drowned among a mix of well-meaning non-experts and outright conspiracy theorists. A good article on CMT based on the Thomson list benefits every reader. It would exclude you, which explains why you oppose it, but that is not a reason to cast aside Misplaced Pages policies.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Except that the clear motivation for your list is to turn the article into a puff piece that makes arguments from naming famous names and lots of other names. Misplaced Pages favors secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources, because anyone can create primary sources, and so they are no indication whatsoever of how important a proponent is. The second list I've provided goes with proponents who are written about by other people, including other proponents!

Honestly, Renejs, I'm just going to do my best to ignore anything else you have to say since you're not here to build a neutral encyclopedia, but preach and crusade for your religious beliefs. ("But I'm not religious!" Then why are you acting just like a Young Earth Creationist that insists we cite Ken Ham in the Evolution article?) I recommend others do so as well until you make enough of a disruption to get you topic-banned, if not blocked, since the only consensus you'll accept is one that presents CMTers as prophets of the truth about Jesus. This is exactly what I would recommend if we were dealing fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Muslim. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A version of the article with the proposed changes mostly in place (or rather, a starting point for such an article) can seen here in this link I'm making longer just to be easier to find. It reduces the article by about 21,861 bytes, down to 111,387 bytes. These are only the minimal changes I think need doing. Pictures could be trimmed (especially Harpur's), Price's three point argument could be merged into the key arguments section, W.B. Smith, Paul-Louis Couchoud, and the 20th and 21st century intros could be more concise. I'll note that this was only a half-can of Mountain Dew's work (less caffeine than I thought, and still suspect, was necessary to do this properly). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we definitely need to keep Doherty as well - he is a major CMT proponent as was acknowledged by Ehrman. We cannot exclude Doherty from an article on his own theory just because he doesn't have a PhD in a rival discipline - that would be like insisting that only Catholic Cardinals are reliable sources for an article on birth control. I prefer the suggestion that we include all authors who contributed substantially to the theory, irrespective of their academic standing in the eyes of their enemies. Remsburg's work was also very influential - it will need a mention somewhere, even if just in a summary section. I don't see the need to divide between living and dead authors. Overall I would prefer that we have sections based on "facets of the CMT" rather than "proponents of the CMT", so that we group the points and then add a list of those authors that support that particular facet, but there are so many facets which vary slightly from the other facets. Wdford (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My main concern with Doherty is that if his article is accurate, almost much everything he's written on CMT is WP:SELFPUB under his own (vanity?) imprint. First edition of The Jesus Puzzle is an exception, so I would rule him in. But it's still something to watch. De Guerre (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Books by authors who neither are scholars in the field nor published by any major publication house is the very definition of something that fails WP:RS, and one of the reasons the policy was developed in the first place. I still think Doherty is sufficiently covered in good sources. True, they almost all dispute him, but what we discuss here is notability, not agreement. I would definitely keep Doherty in the article, but try to focus as far as possible at writings that aren't self-published.Jeppiz (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And here we have yet another illustration of the fundamental problem in this article. To suggest that Doherty is not an expert "in the field" is complete nonsense, since the "field" in question is the Christ Myth Theory, which Doherty helped to create. A scholar who is a published expert in a diametrically opposed field does not automatically qualify as an expert in the CMT field - just as a fundamentalist Christian is not automatically an expert in Islam. The article has long been bedeviled by the argument over how to define a "CMT Expert", and several editors have argued long and hard to exclude many of the people who invented the theory on the grounds that they cannot be experts in their own theory because they do not have doctorates in the rival theory. Established experts in biblical studies certainly disagree with (and often deride) the CMT, just as many fundamentalist Christians disagree with (and often blatantly misrepresent) the teachings of Islam, but established experts in biblical studies are not automatically experts in the CMT. The very people who created the CMT are surely the most competent to explain the theory they created, yes? After all, nobody can have a PhD in CMT if no university offers such a qualification? Wdford (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As a nit, CMT isn't a field, but neither is "Historical Christ Theory" (or whatever). The field is almost always referred to as "Christian origins". Christianity and its early texts indisputably didn't exist at some point in the past and indisputably existed later. The goal is to understand how they came to be, and "expertise" means expertise in studying that topic (be it from the perspective of ancient history, classics, ancient literature, or whatever). I would rule Doherty in not because of qualifications, but because he has published at least one good source and is covered by other good sources. De Guerre (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

CMT certainly is a field in its own right, just not a field that is popular with many "recognized scholars" who are experts in rival theories about Christian origins. Here again we have a case of the supporters of one field trying to deny their rivals the right to exist. If this article was about "Christian origins" then I would whole-heartedly agree with De Guerre, but since this article is about the Christ Myth Theory we need to find experts on the Christ Myth Theory. Who would know the CMT better than the very people who created the CMT? Wdford (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

On a separate point - is there an existing article on "Christian Origins" - it sounds like something that could be very useful indeed? Wdford (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Found it already, my bad. Wdford (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hiatus to complete NazarethGate

For those wishing to know what this has to do with article improvement (and why it wasn't completely removed), Renejs is taking a break from the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Has Renejs really left?

Gmarxx is a WP:SPA focused on:

• Defending Renejs
• Emphasizing the "of Nazareth" bit
• Creating artificial prominence for the CMT
• Generally carrying out edits that Renejs would have wanted , even apparently citing Renejs's posts here as he has only made a !vote.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that there is enough evidence here for a post at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. For the record, the account Gekritzl is also an SPA. Quite a coincidence that after a long silence, both Gmarxx and Gekritzl turns up not only the same day, but almost the same minute at the same article, both of them doing exactly the same edit. Either outright socking or meat-socking.Jeppiz (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You may take off the paranoid hat--GMarxx is not my sockpuppet. And what is "meat-socking"? Must look that up.

And, yes, Renejs has really left. What you are reading is only a delusion--as was JC. Renejs (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Continued disruption by POV-pushing truth warriors

Two single purpose accounts continue to disrupt the article while showing no intention to actually discuss it. It's a bit frustrating, as we've had long and intense discussions during months trying to find a way forward, yet these two disruptive users who only use Misplaced Pages to make a WP:POINT continue to sail in from time to time and disrupt all other editors and make sure their preferred version stays. In the process, they manage to violate WP:OWN, WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:POV, but of course they don't care about that as these religiously motivated SPAs are campaigning for the truth. Given that their actions render all discussion pointless, and their whole point is to wear down serious users who actually take the time to discuss, I'd suggest ANI should be the next. The combination of being a single-purpose account who ignore WP:OWN to push for a higher truth is probably the most disruptive kind of user there is at Misplaced Pages.Jeppiz (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Mythology articles
• Mid-importance Mythology articles
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment